Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description restates 'Read-only', which earns no extra credit. It does add value beyond annotations by disclosing pagination behavior ('Cursor-paginated') and result ordering ('latest start first', 'ended or cancelled'), which an agent needs to interpret multi-page output correctly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

There is no preamble or filler; the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the rest is dense with useful detail. It is slightly run-on with stacked parentheticals, which costs a point but not readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still enumerates them — harmless but partly redundant. Combined with the pagination note, default, and ordering rules, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only guidance on alternatives is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cursor semantics (carries the whole query, send alone) and each status constant. The description mostly echoes the enum meanings and repeats the default ('the default is all'), adding little beyond what structured fields provide; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('List maintenance windows') and enumerates the fields returned (title, start/end, phase, covered monitors, paging hold), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_maintenance (single window) or cancel_maintenance, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains how the status filter narrows results ('narrows to active, upcoming or past') and what the default is, which implies usage context. However, no alternative tools are named and there are no when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites (e.g., 'use get_maintenance for a single window'), leaving routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.